Court hears probation-revocation case against Eric Cantu; GPS data and complainant testimony presented amid subpoena fight

The 187th District Court on Jan. 27 heard evidence in State v. Eric Cantu (cause nos. 2024 CR1237 and 2024 CR1238), where the State alleges Cantu violated terms of his community supervision by leaving his residence without authorization and by involvement in a reported burglary.

Prosecutors introduced testimony and records from Bear County probation and the sheriff’s GPS-monitoring unit showing an unapproved leave on Dec. 4, 2025. Deputy Taryn Smith, a member of the county’s GPS unit, described how the third-party monitoring platform (Sentinel DNA) reports events and runs “stops” and “points” reports. She testified the system logged an unapproved-leave event at about 10:59:48 p.m., showed the monitor leaving the residential zone at roughly 10:55:49 p.m., and later recorded a zero-motion point at about 11:40:49 p.m. Smith said she reviewed the Sentinel notes and contacted the participant; according to the third-party notes and a subsequent call, the participant said he left to address an emergency involving his daughter. Smith testified the reports and the stop-address data formed the basis for her opinion that an unscheduled leave occurred.

Bear County probation officer Chloe Campos earlier described how conditions of supervision and orientation records are scanned into the department’s CSS case-management system and explained that orientation and probation conditions are documented in that system.

San Antonio Police Officer Wilder Garcia testified that officers responded to a 911 call at a Valero station, reviewed body-worn-camera footage (admitted at the hearing), and cleared the complainant’s apartment; Garcia said officers found no obvious signs of forced entry and that property-crimes investigators were notified for follow-up.

The State then called the complainant, who was identified in filings and by the court as Emily (given names in the record include Emily Pru and Emily Brooke). She testified that she received Blink doorbell/camera notifications the night of Dec. 4–5 and, while driving to work, viewed live footage that showed the defendant and others leaving her apartment building. She said her iPad later showed a location associated with the defendant’s family, prompting her to contact police; the court admitted multiple photographs of the apartment (State’s Exhibits 8–15) and screenshots of text messages the witness said came from Cantu (State’s Exhibits 16–22). The witness testified she was disturbed by the messages and that she did not give Cantu permission to enter her apartment or to access her iPad.

The defense pressed the witnesses on the GPS-report mechanics and on whether Sentinel’s estimates (noted by asterisks in the reports) represent exact addresses; Smith acknowledged GPS address matches can be approximations and said the system’s accuracy is about 16 feet. She also described the unit’s 48-hour leave-request process and explained that deputies generally answer Sentinel alerts, attempt to verify location data and call the subject.

Before the complainant testified, the court took extended argument on a motion by the witness’s appointed attorney, Meredith Chacon, who sought to quash a subpoena duces tecum and a grand-jury summon served on the witness. Chacon argued the witness was summoned to the DA’s office and told by a prosecutor she did not “need a lawyer” and was impliedly threatened with incarceration if she refused to talk; she asked the court to exclude statements obtained that way. Prosecutors countered that the office routinely serves subpoenas and that the grand-jury process and subpoena in this matter were valid. Reviewing the subpoena returns and the prosecutor’s interview notes at sidebar, the judge denied the motion to quash but ruled that statements made to the interviewing prosecutor (ADA Alban, as recorded in the prosecutor’s notes) would not be admissible in the MTR hearing; the court allowed the witness to testify under the subpoena duces tecum and admitted other non-prosecutor-record statements and documentary exhibits.

No final disposition on the motion to revoke was reached. The court recessed and continued the hearing to the next morning at 10:00 a.m. for further proceedings. Defense counsel indicated they would consider whether the defendant would testify or call witnesses in his defense.

Why this matters: The hearing turns on whether Cantu’s movements and contacts—captured in third-party GPS logs, police camera footage and text messages—establish a breach of supervision conditions that justifies revocation. The case also raised procedural questions about the use of grand-jury process and interview practices when a complainant is brought to the prosecutor’s office.

What’s next: The hearing will resume at 10:00 a.m. on the court’s next scheduled date to determine whether the State has proved the violations and whether the court will revoke supervision, impose a sentence, or take other action.